Latest Posts

Tennis Beyond the Headlines: June 22, 2026 The Trophy Husband: Father’s Day 2026 Good Eye: A New Addition to the Tennis Dad Joke Canon The Unwritten Rules of Tennis Dad Jokes  Breaking Serve: From Championship Coach to Prison — and the Journey Back The Code Principle 11 Rafael Nadal, Child’s Pose, and the Value of Stillness

Losing a Point: Permanent Fixtures

If it seems like I have already written about this rule, it is because I actually have. In “Permanent Fixtures, Again” I wrote a lot about how the ball striking a permanent fixture is a point loss. There is good reason for that. It is because the section we were covering at that time basically says the exact same thing.

Two Serves or Not Two Serves, That is the Question

In the “History of the Service Let” we discussed that there really isn’t a satisfactory reason recorded as to why the service let even exists. One speculative reason is that the rule is in place because the server already has too much of an advantage with two opportunities at first strike of the ball. This brings us to the obvious question as to why the server is granted two serves at all.

Additional Let Rules

In “Not Quite Ready to Receive” it was discussed that if the receiver is not ready then the serve cannot be called a fault. I missed the subtlety of the usage of the word fault in that coverage of the rule. It was clear that the serve cannot be counted against the receiver if the receiver is not ready. The nuance is that the serve cannot be counted against the server either if it does not fall in.

The Let During a Serve

The word let, when used as a noun, is literally defined as “something that impedes: obstruction.” The idiom “without let or hindrance” is commonly used in British law to mean “without being interfered with.” With those two sentences this project has now covered the full spectrum of possible content gravitas, ranging from language arts on one end to funny YouTube videos on the other.